Major Anish Muralidhar v. Ex Sub Asok M S

Delhi High Court · 08 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11079-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 18549/2025
2025:DHC:11079-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal's grant of disability pension for Primary Hypertension based on established precedents and medical findings.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 18549/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 18549/2025, CM APPLs. 77071/2025 & 77072/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Sr. PC
WITH
Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Adv. for UOI
WITH
Major Anish Muralidhar (Army)
VERSUS
EX SUB ASOK M S NO JC 763698H .....Respondent
Through: Mr. O.P. Punia and Mr. Ashish Punia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
08.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 30 October 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal[1] whereby the respondent’s prayer for disability pension has been allowed.

2. Disability pension was sought on the ground that the respondent suffered from Primary Hypertension which was found to be 30% for life rounded off to 50%. The onset of the Primary Hypertension was 28 years after the respondent joined the service. No Primary “AFT”, hereinafter Hypertension was noted at the time when the respondent was recruited.

3. The reasoning given by the Release Medical Board for holding that the respondent’s Primary Hypertension was not attributable to or aggravated by service read thus: “Onset in peace 10 May 2010. No close time association with service in Fd/CI Ops/HAA. No delay in diagnosis or treatment. Hence NANA. (Para 43, CH-VI, GMO-2008)”

4. In 207 similar cases, in which the reasoning of the RMB is substantially the same, including Union of India v. Ex. SGT Manoj K L Retd[2] and Union of India v. Rajveender Singh Mallhi[3] as well as Union of India v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso[4], we have upheld the order of the AFT and dismissed the writ petition.

5. Those decisions apply, mutatis mutandis, to the present case.

6. We have not been informed that any of these decisions has been stayed or interfered with by the Supreme Court.

7. This dispute is entirely covered by the aforesaid decisions.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

9. Compliance with the order of the AFT be positively ensured

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 8, 2025